Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I make a point of order against consideration of H. Res. 594 because the first section of the rule waives all points of order against H.R. 3162 and its consideration, except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. This waiver includes points of order under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Madam Speaker, while the CBO estimate in the report from the Committee on Ways and Means does not identify any unfunded mandates, it's important to note that there are and that there is no such estimate for the amendment self-executed by the closed rule reported in the dead of night by the majority's Rules Committee. We have no way of knowing whether these new provisions, which we did not see before midnight last night, will impose strict new intergovernmental mandates on our State and local governments.

Furthermore, this new language appears to be littered with earmarks for hospital-specific projects. We do not have a list of the Members requesting those projects, and we do not know if the proper certifications have been filed with the authorizing committees.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is essential that we stop, take a breather and put off consideration of this hastily drafted legislation, which was totally rewritten in the dead of night, behind closed doors.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the question of consideration.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the new Democrat majority promised the American people and those Republicans who are now in the minority that this would be an open and transparent new way of doing business by Democrats. We were told back in January and February, oh, the only reason we're doing closed rules is because we've got to do them to get our agenda through quickly, because we're not going to allow anybody to stop that. Six in '06 has to be done.

Well, Madam Speaker, there were no hearings even done on this with the text of the bill that the committee could look at. Last night, 30 minutes before we went into Rules Committee, we had an opportunity to see the language.

On top of the $200 billion Medicare cuts, the Democrats have now slipped in extra hospital funding for powerful Democrat districts. That means where Democrats are they've slipped in these brand new earmarks, right there for them.

We have not had an opportunity to look at the bill, we don't know whether the proper notification has been done, and so what we're saying now today is that what we should do is take a few minutes and sit back and look.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee we had an opportunity to see firsthand what this new Democrat majority is all about. And not one time, not one time, was the word let's make health care better for America, not one time was it about trying to make things better for

doctors and hospitals and patients. It was a slam dunk, hit 'em out of bounds, the doctors, who they claim make all this money, who it's all about the doctors making money.

And I had an opportunity to engage those people who represented the Ways and Means Committee and the Commerce Committee, and I said, hey, during your hearings, that you talk about you having all these hearings, did anyone ever bring up that specialty hospitals are those many times joint ventures with hospitals where they're trying to take care of patients who come for elective surgeries to get them out of hospitals that are full, emergency rooms that are backed up, and then we've got a problem with health because of bacteria in the hospitals. And these hospitals are safer and offer elective surgery to get people in and out that is much cheaper and safer and better.

They acted like it was a foreign concept. They acted like they had never heard about the marketplace before.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, we believe that the earmarks which have been presented, which the way this bill has come to the floor, is not properly done. It did not follow regular order. It is without the transparency that the new Democrat majority has touted and talks about every single day. It is without the smell test of ethics to know, straight up, what somebody is going to spend money on, the people's money. And because of that, we are opposing and asking that this bill go back and be properly done to where everyone can understand.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time remains.

Madam Speaker, I believe that the case that we are making here today is a smell test, and that is that if the new Democrat majority wants to have closed rules, not have openness with regular order, not present bills before they would be voted on to allow people enough time to see what is in them and to be transparent about what is in the bills and who is getting the money and who is spending the money, you have not passed the smell test. And thus we are asking that you not do what you are doing.

We oppose the Democrat majority.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to yet another closed rule and to the ill-conceived underlying legislation.

While I do not support this bill nor the way it has been brought to the floor without a single legislative markup, I would like to thank the Democratic leadership for one thing: By cramming this bill through the House, they are giving every single Member of this body the opportunity to go on record regarding which vision for the future our Nation's health care system should take.

Madam Speaker, for that, I truly appreciate and respect what the Democrat leadership has done.

The first vision for our future, for them, is to slowly shift as many Americans as possible into a one-size-fits-all government program. You know what it has been called in the past: Socialized medicine.

I congratulate the Democrat leadership, because that vision is ably embodied in the bill today, H.R. 3162. Rather than using this bill as an opportunity to cover children who cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private market, this bill uses children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health care needs. And you know what they say, Madam Speaker: If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.

Democrat advocates of bureaucrat-run, Washington-run health care fails to disclose how they would achieve this vision. Republicans who actually care about covering children created SCHIP so that children who had no insurance coverage through Medicaid or the insurance market could get it without bankrupting the Federal Government or dislocating a healthy marketplace.

H.R. 3162 turns this innovative vision on its head by increasing government spending exponentially, leaving taxpayers holding the bag for these increased costs. This bill has no income limits for eligibility, no annual authorization limit, and allows States to determine who qualifies, despite the fact that the Federal Government is on the hook 100 percent of the time. This is on top of a current system which we know that some States already abuse. Minnesota spends 61 percent of its children's health care insurance on adults, while Wisconsin spends 75 percent of its children's health care money on adults, taking scarce resources away from the intended target, children.

But the real losers under this big government vision are patients. For 100 children who are enrolled in the new SCHIP proposal, 25 to 50 children will leave private insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office; 77 percent of children at between 200 and 300 percent of the Federal poverty level already had insurance in 2005.

As we all know, being a part of the government-run health care program does not mean better quality. Since most SCHIP programs reimburse at Medicaid rates, many of these new SCHIP enrollees will encounter significant difficulties accessing care. American Medicaid patients, for example, are currently waiting as long to see a specialist or to have surgery as patients in Canada.

If Democrats were serious about ensuring that every American has access to inexpensive and high-quality health care, we would be taking a different vision and a different direction for our health care; one that tackles the system's real underlying problems and revolutionizes and gives incentives to our health care system to provide better results.

All families should have access to tax exemptions up to $15,000 a year for health care, not just those who work for large employers. Congress should spend its time passing a law to give Americans the ability to purchase health insurance across State lines, because health insurance options should not be limited by your zip code.

Congress should be working to ensure that those who can't get insurance on the market have access to coverage through high-risk pools and low-income tax credits.

Madam Speaker, I am not here to oppose the idea of SCHIP. It was a Republican-controlled Congress that created SCHIP. I do support its true mission. But H.R. 3162 is a camouflaged attempt at slowly siphoning Americans away from insurance plans into a big, Washington, D.C. government-run system.

To pay for this flawed, big government vision, this legislation robs seniors by forcing many of them out of their existing Medicare coverage at a time when our Nation is looking for better ways to sustain Medicare's future. Medicare part C is an innovative plan that is working well by bringing choices into Medicare. After these seniors are harmed in the long run, it is the taxpayers who will be stuck with the rest of the bill for this incredible expansion of government and intrusion into our lives in taking away our choices.

Republicans have already proven this would be a positive, innovative vision that can work. Two years ago, Members from both sides of the aisle came together to pass the Dylan Lee James Family Opportunity Act, or FOA. We learned that many children with disabilities fell into a catch-22 circumstance in which their families made too much to qualify for Medicaid but could not afford or access private coverage, so these children often went without coverage. FOA was a commonsense solution which filled a void and provided coverage for these children up to 300 percent of the poverty level.

Madam Speaker, we have two serious issues facing our Nation that we are dealing with right now: Medicare's future, and making our Nation's health insurance system more affordable and accessible for all Americans. By focusing the wrong vision for our future, the bill does nothing to address either problem.

It ignores the fact that our Nation produced the greatest health care advocates in the world, many of which come as a result of a competitive insurance market. The American survival rate for leukemia is 50 percent. The European rate is just right at 35 percent. For prostate cancer, the American survival rate is 81.2 percent. In France, it is 61.7 percent, and in England, it is 44.3 percent.

Rather than trying to emulate the European socialized, outdated approach, we should be working on a vision to give every single American an opportunity to take part in our competitive insurance market.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and the underlying legislation to drag America into a one-size-fits-all model of defeatism. Returning the balance of power, once again, to Washington, D.C. to run our health care plan is what the new Democrat majority is all about.

Madam Speaker, I oppose that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, these debates are great. It gives everybody on both sides, including the Democrats who ran on an agenda of having socialized medicine, Washington, D.C.-run health care, they can come down to the floor of the House and talk about this is their model of a great bill.

We disagree.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Madam Speaker, if I could inquire upon the time remaining on both sides, please.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that, as a result of the large number of Members who are coming down to speak, as a courtesy to these Members, that we would add 10 minutes to each side for debate.

Do not want to talk further on this bill from the new Democrat majority.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Brighton, Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Will the gentleman yield?

Welcome to the new Democrat-run House of Representatives: No debate added time. No regular order hearings. Closed rules. Welcome.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, it's my understanding the gentlewoman from Florida is indicating she has no additional speakers and that she would choose to close?

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment, which I will offer to the rule if the previous question is defeated, and extraneous material be printed just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Madam Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes for the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 9: In section 8027, page 61, starting on line

1, strike ``Provided further'' and all that follows through

the period on line 4.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 10: Strike section 8020.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 9: In section 8027, page 61, starting on line

1, strike ``Provided further'' and all that follows through

the period on line 4.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 10: Strike section 8020.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 19: Page 3, line 9, strike ``: Provided'' and

all that follows through ``budgets for contracting out''.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 20: Strike section 727.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this completely closed rule and to the underlying big government legislation to use eminent domain to strip property owners of their rights that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today.

This is the first of two closed rules being brought to the floor today courtesy of the Democrat majority from the graveyard of democracy and good ideas in the House of Representatives, the Rules Committee. It represents yet another example of the procedural gimmickry being blatantly exploited by the Democrats as they continue to completely ignore their campaign to run the most honest, open Congress in history.

Mr. Speaker, as any 5-year-old could tell you, the opposite of open is closed, and that's precisely what the American people are getting from the Democrats once again, another closed rule.

In fact, as compared with last Congress, through the same date, as of July 30, the Democrats have brought exactly twice as many closed rules to the floor as Republicans did when we held the Speaker's gavel.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record a document prepared by the Republican staff of the Rules Committee comparing the Democrats' awful record of reporting out closed rules in the 110th with last year's record of those controlled by the Republican Congress.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's inquiring about our intent. We have at least two speakers who would wish to speak on this issue at this time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Speaker, the bill that is being brought forward today, I believe, is yet another example of the Democrat majority's attack on what I would refer to as constitutional balanced authority in this country. By virtue of bringing this bill forward, it means that what we will be doing is not allowing what I think is a fair process for people dealing with their own private land.

And I'm sure that you'll have lots of people who are my friends who are Democrats say, well, this is so important that we've got to have this land for the interest of all of the people, so we can have this pristine land. But, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about private property. And private property rights are those things under which this country, one of the things that this country is founded under that makes us entirely different than other countries. Other countries, many of them, all around the world, do not extend to their citizens the right for private property.

And so today, once again, what we're seeing is an assault, an attack, using Congress to come and use the powers of the Federal Government against private landowners. I'm sure if their story were being presented today, these private landowners may tell the story about how, for many, many years, I don't know the stories, but how many, many years, being from Texas we could tell the same story, in Connecticut it might be even longer, how people have passed these pieces of property down through generations.

But the fact of the matter is that any time that private property is being taken as a result of a force or a threat, in this case, to make a scenic wilderness area pristine and to preserve that as opposed to a single property owner keeping what they had, making those choices within the law and looking up and seeing the Federal Government staring down at them with all the resources of the Federal Government, knowing that the United States Congress brought this action on them, is regrettable.

It's regrettable that it had to happen this way. It's regrettable that we could not at least, through the Rules Committee, make a simple amendment in order that would say, why don't we clarify that we're not going to force this issue, that we'll hope that some compromise happens, but that we're not going to allow this condemnation.

Not at all. Can't have that kind of debate here.

And this Congress had claimed that we were going to be open and honest, and it would be the most open and honest Congress in the history of the United States Congress.

So that's what's regrettable. That's what's regrettable that here we find ourselves on a Monday at the end of July trying to help the big Federal Government to grab the land from private landowners. And I think that's wrong. I think it's wrong. I think it's wrong for this House to do that without being on record of saying we're not going to sick the Federal Government on these people who might be private landowners.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote for the previous question for this rule. And if the previous question fails, I will ask the House to amend the rule to provide for the separate consideration of H.R. 3138, which would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the definition of electronic surveillance.

Our country is facing a very serious problem, and I said this on the floor of the House twice last week, that must be addressed before the House adjourns in August. That means last week we had two weeks to get it done; this week we have one week to get it done. The majority Democrats continue to shirk their responsibilities to keep Americans safe by ignoring the seriousness of this threat.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 11 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico, the ``Land of Enchantment'' (Mrs. Wilson).

By prior agreement, I will close at this time, and I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, if the Rules Committee wants to spend special time on the House floor debating these closed rules, I believe that we can do better than the Eightmile Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

However, for some reason this Democrat leadership cannot seem to find time to schedule consideration of legislation that was just spoken about by the gentlewoman from New Mexico and the gentleman from California that clarifies one very specific thing, and that is that the United States Government will no longer be required to get a warrant to listen to foreign terrorists who are not even located in the United States of America.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have got time to pick on private landowners and to take their land by the use and force of the Federal Government, but we don't have time to schedule legislation to come and protect this country. Utterly incredible.

The Director of the National Intelligence, Michael McConnell and the Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, have testified to this Congress that under current law their hands are tied. They are giving this body notice: we cannot do this under the law. And as Director McConnell testified, FISA is outdated and has been made obsolete by technology.

Today, once again, the Republicans are asking for us to support the intelligence community because they are forced to obtain warrants to listen to terrorists outside of our Nation, and as a result, and this is a quote, ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting,'' directly from the Director of Central Intelligence.

This Congress has known about it for months. Republicans were on the floor last week. We are on the floor again this week. We are saying we are getting ready to go on break, we need to protect this country, we need to pass the law. We are asking the Democrat leadership once again if you have got time for this bill that is about a river, you certainly should have time to protect this country when our intelligence people are saying we need it. We have been saying for months we need it. The Republicans are on the floor today again to say there are 5 days left and then we will be on vacation.

Are they going to say to the American people and to the intelligence community, ``Too bad, we didn't have time to do that?''

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about facing down this threat, Mr. Speaker, they should come and join us. They should join us in defeating the previous question so that the House will be able to then address this issue since the Democrat leadership won't.

Don't hide behind something that deals with Republican or Democrat, and do the right thing for the country. This is a very real and a very serious threat.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include my amendment and extraneous material in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, as I was preparing to come down here just a minute ago, I was met by one of my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida who said: Another closed rule? My gosh, I thought they said this was going to be an open Congress. I thought they said we are going to have closed rules only to get their political agenda, 6 in '06 done, and then we will quit that.

Well, to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), another closed rule. However, this closed rule is just another manifestation of the new Democratic majority's philosophy. Just another one. And that is, if you can't support the bill in its current form, you shouldn't be given an amendment. That is the new philosophy at the Rules Committee. Democrats on the Rules Committee said at least twice last week that Members who are not willing to vote for the bill should not be allowed to offer amendments.

I would like to quote one of my colleagues. This took place this last week, and it says, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), ``I will argue for a closed rule. It makes no sense to have the minority presenting anything they might improve, that they might have agreed upon, and at the end not vote for the bill.''

Hello? What's the Rules Committee for? The Rules Committee is there to perfect bills, to make them better, to listen to input from Members of Congress. Yes, that does include the minority in my opinion, but that is only upon 9 years of service to the Rules Committee, where the Rules Committee, for the 9 years prior to this, we were very careful to make sure that minority members had a say, could come before the Rules Committee. This is yet another example of the circular logic used by the majority. And it is only when you support a bill should you have the opportunity to amend it.

You know, this is tortured logic and it makes no sense, and it prevents good ideas from being considered by the House. But this is the way they are going to run the House, it seems like. New logic, move the goalposts. And make sure, if you are in the minority and if you don't completely agree with the Democrat majority, you have no need to come to the Rules Committee. We don't care, and you are not going to have a chance to even be heard or understood. It's a sad day.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 19: Page 3, line 9, strike ``: Provided'' and

all that follows through ``budgets for contracting out''.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 20: Strike section 727.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the woefully incomplete conference report that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today.

Despite the repeated campaign promises made by Democrat leaders to the American people that they would take action on all of the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations, that is not what is being done and not what is being brought to the floor of the House today.

It now appears that those claims were nothing more than just a hollow campaign promise because, as anticipated, they have failed to address a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.

While the Senate included a simple sense of Congress that congressional operations should be streamlined so that overlapping and duplicative oversight issues could be addressed, even this simple symbolic measure was dropped from the final legislation.

The 9/11 Commission stated: ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important. So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need.''

It went on further to say: ``Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security.''

In the 109th Congress, House Republicans provided the responsible leadership needed on this issue by making the Committee on Homeland Security a standing committee, but there are still 10 other House committees that have overlapping and redundant oversight over the Department of Homeland Security.

House Democrats could have enacted this change with a simple rules change at the start of the 110th Congress. They failed to do so then; and with this legislation, they are once again ignoring this important issue entirely, including a campaign promise.

Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, this conference report is not a complete failure. Thanks to the leadership of President Bush and House Republicans, two important provisions were fixed in this conference report that will help keep Americans safe and improve our ability to combat terror at home.

First, this legislation wisely does not contain a mandate that collective bargaining rights be required for the Transportation Security Administration screeners. This dangerous provision was originally buried in the House Democrat leadership's version of this legislation; and thanks to President Bush's veto threat, it has been removed from the legislation that we are considering today.

The 9/11 Commission did not recommend collective bargaining for TSA screeners. In fact, to the contrary. The commission stressed the need to improve airport security and screening procedures. Collective bargaining would have prevented implementing fluid operations for protecting our country by requiring TSA management to consult with union bosses before making critical homeland security decisions.

As Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff explained, ``Marines don't collectively bargain over whether they're going to wind up being deployed in Anbar province in Baghdad. We can't negotiate over terms and conditions of work that go to the heart of our ability to move rapidly in order to deal with the threats that are emerging.''

Secretary Chertoff also noted that the proposed negotiations with unions would have seriously threatened operations such as the interception of the London bombing plot or a response to Hurricane Katrina. Thankfully, in what may be the first missed opportunity for increasing the power of labor bosses this year in the House, good sense prevailed and this provision did not survive the legislative process.

Additionally, good sense and Republican-proposed policy prevailed in this conference through the inclusion of a provision to protect vigilant observers who support suspicious terror-related activity. By including these John Doe provisions, my good friend, the Homeland Security Ranking Member Peter King, won a great victory on behalf of the American people.

As Congressman King recently noted, in a post-9/11 reality, vigilance is essential to security. Despite the Democrat opposition to this Homeland Security measure, common sense has prevailed and heroic Americans who report suspicious activity will be prevented and protected from frivolous lawsuits. The American people were heard, and our country is safer because of it.

I commend Congressman King and other Republicans that served on this conference committee for insisting that Congress not let trial lawyers and the fear of litigation get in the way of promoting one of our best and most dynamic lines of defense against domestic terrorism, having everyday Americans report potential threats and terrorist activities to the proper authority.

While the Democrat party may not trust American men and women to use their good sense in reporting suspicious activity, I know as Republicans that's what we will do, and I really do appreciate Pete's efforts for this hard work.

I also appreciate all the hard work that was put into developing the conference reports on both sides of the aisle. I am also pleased to note that this conference report represents the first time that labor bosses and trial attorneys have been denied their every wish on this House floor. Unfortunately, I am not confident that we will see another commonsense bill that puts the safety and well-being of the American people over these special interests any time soon.

I also appreciate the Democrat leadership's attempt at almost fulfilling one of their many unfulfilled campaign promises by bringing this legislation back to the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida, the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Mica.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the gentlewoman, if I can, since she is an expert on this important piece of legislation if she would. And the question I would like to ask the gentlewoman:

Republicans tried our very best, other than demanding, that the terrorist watch list would be applied to trains and passengers for people like on trains and Amtrak. And I wonder if the gentlewoman can tell me whether that was added in this conference report.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, people stand up and talk about what a great job they are doing to protect this country, but they fail to get the essence because it might be a privacy concern. The fact of the matter is that all the people that are on our trains, Amtrak, that we are spending billions of dollars that are being spent for more security officers; and yet the Democrats fail to do the simplest thing, and that is, at the time you buy a ticket, seeing if you are on the terrorist watch list.

It is incredibly arrogant that this Congress would stand up and say we are doing all we can do, and yet we do not even apply the terrorist watch list to people who would be on our trains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes at this time to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to know how much we're protecting this country and what's included in this bill.

I think what the gentlewoman also forgot to say is that in committee they denied CBP the ability to even look at passengers' names who are coming in on rail from other countries to the United States. Once again, another failure from this Democrat Congress.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote on the previous question for this rule. If the previous question fails, I will ask the House to amend the rule to provide for the separate consideration of H.R. 3138, which would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the definition of electronic surveillance.

Mr. Speaker, our country is facing a serious problem that must be addressed before the House adjourns in August. And to date the Democrat majority has continued to shirk their responsibility

to keep America safe by ignoring the seriousness of this threat.

Today the Rules Committee met to pass a rule for the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act; however, this Democrat leadership cannot seem to find time to schedule consideration of legislation that clarifies one very simple and critical thing, and that is that the United States Government will no longer be required to get a warrant to listen to foreign terrorists who are not even located in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, repeatedly Members of this House have come to the floor for weeks and weeks and weeks asking for that ability to make sure we can get this done to protect the American people. The Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, and the Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, have testified to Congress that under current law their hands are tied. As Director McConnell recently testified, FISA is outdated and has been made obsolete by technology. I might also say, and the laws governing that. And today our intelligence community is forced to obtain warrants to listen to terrorists outside our Nation, and as a result we are actually missing, we are missing, a significant portion of what we should be getting. Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to be asleep; it is a different thing not to even wake up and see what you need to do.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about facing down the threat, they will join me in defeating the previous question so the House will be able to address this very real and serious threat immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include my amendment and extraneous materials in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an aviation legend who recently announced his plan to retire next May. Herb Kelleher is a founder of Southwest Airlines and currently serves as its Executive Chairman, a position that he has held since the spring of 1978. From the fall of 1981 to the summer of 2001, Kelleher also served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Southwest Airlines.

Southwest started its operations in 1971 with just three airplanes. Today, it operates a fleet of 489 airplanes with orders for many more 737s. Home-based at Dallas Love Field, I am proud to represent many Southwest Airlines employees that live in the 32nd Congressional District of Texas. Southwest Airlines has been profitable for 34 consecutive years, a feat that is impressive for any business, but for an airline to be profitable for 34 consecutive years, given all of the challenges and tough competition in the aviation industry, is truly impressive. Southwest Airlines prides itself on never having furloughed an employee during its history.

Kelleher's vision for Southwest Airlines was not to produce a company that would just return profits to its shareholders--but for a company that has the respect and admiration of those who purchase the tickets and go to work everyday for the company. For the 10th year in a row, Fortune magazine honored Southwest Airlines in its annual survey of corporate reputations. Furthermore, among all industries in 2006, Fortune has also ranked Southwest Airlines as number three among America's Top Ten most admired corporations.

I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with Herb for many years, and I wish him all the very best for a well-earned retirement next year. However, knowing Herb, he will continue to work very hard for Southwest Airlines until the day that he leaves the office for the last time. He may be leaving the airline that he helped to create, but his legacy will never leave the spirit that is Southwest Airlines.